You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Well if you're going to post stupid shit you're going to get stupid shit in response. Or perhaps you thought I was being something other than disingenious.

I really think that you should wise up in your posting behaviour and its not the first time I've said it. I really dont think you add ANYTHING to the discussions when you trawl threads looking to make citations out of all context to try and score points of engage in the sorts of name calling or PC interventions which will shut down discussion.

All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.
Chapter IV, p. 448. - Adam Smith, Book 3, The Wealth of Nations

whether or not you credit psychoanalysis itself, the fact remains that we all must, to the greatest extent possible, understand one another's minds as our own; the very survival of humanity has always depended on it. - Open Culture

Well if you're going to post stupid shit you're going to get stupid shit in response. Or perhaps you thought I was being something other than disingenious.

It's stupid to point out flagrant homophobia? I see.

Originally Posted by Lark

I really think that you should wise up in your posting behaviour and its not the first time I've said it. I really dont think you add ANYTHING to the discussions when you trawl threads looking to make citations out of all context to try and score points of engage in the sorts of name calling or PC interventions which will shut down discussion.

Because it's "PC" and "name calling" to point out flagrant homophobia? I see.

Because it's "PC" and "name calling" to point out flagrant homophobia? I see.

It's more helpful to the discussion if you ask him why he considers lesbians as a point of contention in this issue, rather than bandy about a word whose only purpose is to shut down discussion and shame the target for breaching a purported social norm.

It's more helpful to the discussion if you ask him why he considers lesbians as a point of contention in this issue, rather than bandy about a word whose only purpose is to shut down discussion and shame the target for breaching a purported social norm.

I already know why he "considers lesbians as a point of contention" (what a wonderful euphemism). He doesn't need my permission to defend himself. Abject, repugnant stupidity ought to be shamed.

I already know why he "considers lesbians as a point of contention" (what a wonderful euphemism). He doesn't need my permission to defend himself. Abject, repugnant stupidity ought to be shamed.

Then it seems that you are not interested in a discussion, and would rather moralize. That's your prerogative. However, I would advise anyone in this thread to give up on any hopes of meaningful discussion with you, as it appears to be a waste of both time and energy.

Then it seems that you are not interested in a discussion, and would rather moralize. That's your prerogative. However, I would advise anyone in this thread to give up on any hopes of meaningful discussion with you, as it appears to be a waste of both time and energy.

There's no moralising here. I'm simply no more interested in discussing the acceptability of homophobia than I am the truthfulness of the flat Earth theory. There are some positions which ought to be rejected prima facie, such is their odiousness or foolishness. All they then deserve is to be ridiculed.

As much as I am in favor of gay equality, I have to say... please stop bandying this term about. Not all people who do not support gay rights are afraid of gay people, which is what this term means. I have several acquaintances who disagree wholeheartedly with homosexual behavior, but who actually have several friends that they routinely hang out with who are gay. This struck me as a bit weird, but nonetheless, it's where I got my point from. In a similar manner, if I like the color red, and you do not, expressing your disapproval (that being the extent of the disagreement), I would not call you a redophobe. You're not afraid of the color red. You just don't like it as much as I do.
A homophobe is someone who runs around calling people epithets to try to cover up his own latent fear that he'll become like those he hates. It's disgusting.

I don't think that the term "homophobia" is restricted simply to that literal definition of fear of gay people. It has come to be the representative term for a variety of anti-gay positions, and I believe being anti-gay marriage would qualify as a homophobic position.

I suppose one would only argue that it is NOT homophobic IF they thought that some anti-gay marriage positions were defensible. Hence your example with the color red. If you really think that your example is analogous to the gay marriage issue, then you must think that anti-gay marriage positions are as understandable and acceptable as someone preferring another color.

You are aware that being friends with and enjoying the company of gays does not mean that someone is not homophobic, right? I've known a couple of people, for instance, that have gay friends and acquaintances but who, when asked about gay political issues, would say something heinous like, "I have no problem with them personally, but I just don't want their type of lifestyle to be shoved down my throat."